Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

are the Evolutionary Psychologists right? Do women really prefer the dominant alpha-male asshole typ Options · View
crazydiamond
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:21:55 PM

Rank: Clever Gem

Joined: 7/17/2011
Posts: 2,286
Location: Exactly where I should be!, Canada
ArthurG77 wrote:


He does appear to be intellectually out of his depth in this thread.........


Correction- I may be... but he is not.




LadyX
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:23:21 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
ArthurG77 wrote:


He does appear to be intellectually out of his depth in this thread.........


I don't even know the guy, and I can tell you right now that he's not out of his depth here.

Yet another dick-swinging molehill turned mountain, from what I can tell. The only written distinction between you seems to exist in the wording/semantics realm. Define "most competitive". Wouldn't a superior competitor either inherently be the most capable in other aspects, or break his back to become those things?

Forget about the "joke you don't get". The answers here, especially his, are pretty damn instructive.
crazydiamond
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:25:38 PM

Rank: Clever Gem

Joined: 7/17/2011
Posts: 2,286
Location: Exactly where I should be!, Canada
LadyX wrote:


I don't even know the guy, and I can tell you right now that he's not out of his depth here.

Yet another dick-swinging molehill turned mountain, from what I can tell. The only written distinction between you seems to exist in the wording/semantics realm. Define "most competitive". Wouldn't a superior competitor either inherently be the most capable in other aspects, or break his back to become those things?

Forget about the "joke you don't get". The answers here, especially his, are pretty damn instructive.


Precisely.

Guest
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:25:49 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
crazydiamond wrote:


I read the whole thread Arthur! Otherwise, I would be ignorant.

Evolution then, right here right now- He's buff with a smart ass mouth! You are are hiding behind a finger with a smart ass mouth... survival of the fittest.



I don't know your relationship with him. But it appears i have touched a raw nerve with you. "hiding behind a finger"?? how on earth is that relevant? And i don't see his face either. Please explain what you think survival of the fittest means. I'm not here to get involved in petty bickering with people. Again apologies if my words offend Which they clearly have. Hey I'm a nice gy afterallBig Hugs
Guest
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:26:42 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
crazydiamond wrote:


I read the whole thread Arthur! Otherwise, I would be ignorant.

Evolution then, right here right now- He's buff with a smart ass mouth! You are are hiding behind a finger with a smart ass mouth... survival of the fittest.



I don't know your relationship with him. But it appears i have touched a raw nerve with you. "hiding behind a finger"?? how on earth is that relevant? And i don't see his face either. Please explain what you think survival of the fittest means. I'm not here to get involved in petty bickering with people. Again apologies if my words offend Which they clearly have. Hey I'm a nice gy afterallBig Hugs
crazydiamond
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:35:51 PM

Rank: Clever Gem

Joined: 7/17/2011
Posts: 2,286
Location: Exactly where I should be!, Canada
Yes you are a nice and friendly guy I have noticed!!
And as per Fuckwit- "not all friend-zone guys are nice". Friend zone guys can be pushy, manipulative, whiney and underhand - none of which I would class as "nice" attributes.


Guest
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:40:05 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
crazydiamond wrote:
Yes you are a nice and friendly guy I have noticed!!
And as per Fuckwit- "not all friend-zone guys are nice". Friend zone guys can be pushy, manipulative, whiney and underhand - none of which I would class as "nice" attributes.



Oh, I see my sarcasm was lost on you. Nevermind.
I was nice years ago. These days as i previously mentioned, I hover between alpha and beta.
crazydiamond
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:47:14 PM

Rank: Clever Gem

Joined: 7/17/2011
Posts: 2,286
Location: Exactly where I should be!, Canada
Any friendship with OMKN is irrelevant. What is relevant is Arthur's attack of "fuckwit" when faced with an opposing opinion. It is he who turned it ugly and thus invalidated his entire premise by not being able to defend it, but rather attack the messenger.

Guest
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:56:49 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
crazydiamond wrote:
Yes you are a nice and friendly guy I have noticed!!
And as per Fuckwit- "not all friend-zone guys are nice". Friend zone guys can be pushy, manipulative, whiney and underhand - none of which I would class as "nice" attributes.


The only 2 issues i had with your friend were 1) that he described a very narrow interpretation of evolution (co-operation is as essential to survival as competition) and 2) His accusation toward me that i propagate my own bias statements backed up by theories i looked up on the net. Which is NOT true.

I posted this thread in 'Think Tank' and was pleased with the response overall. I wanted good intelligent points of view from people.

Saying friend zone guys can be manipulative, whiny and underhanded, was a good statement from him. But the other 2 points above led me to descibe him as a fuckwit.
Guest
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 2:01:22 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
crazydiamond wrote:
Any friendship with OMKN is irrelevant. What is relevant is Arthur's attack of "fucktwit" when faced with an opposing opinion. It is he who turned it ugly and thus invalidated his entire premise by not being able to defend it, but rather attack the messenger.


His "propaganda" accusation towards me was malicious. and i'd be less offended if someone called me a fuckwit than what he said. So, no. It was he I considered that turned things ugly. I have no issue with his point of view as such. Just his attack on me was out of line.
Guest
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 2:07:20 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
crazydiamond wrote:
Any friendship with OMKN is irrelevant. What is relevant is Arthur's attack of "fucktwit" when faced with an opposing opinion. It is he who turned it ugly and thus invalidated his entire premise by not being able to defend it, but rather attack the messenger.



I spent years delving into Evolutionary theory, as well as Evolutionasy psychology, so I was frankly more than a little peeved when I read "Don't fall into the trap of coming up with a theory based on your own limited and biased experience and then finding stuff on the internet to back it. What you end up is simply propaganda for your personality type over others. And it's pretty obvious."

this statement is not 'ugly'?
LadyX
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 2:09:42 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
ArthurG77 wrote:



I spent years delving into Evolutionary theory, as well as Evolutionasy psychology, so I was frankly more than a little peeved when I read "Don't fall into the trap of coming up with a theory based on your own limited and biased experience and then finding stuff on the internet to back it. What you end up is simply propaganda for your personality type over others. And it's pretty obvious."

this statement is not 'ugly'?


Arthur, he's a no-bullshit responder. Don't be offended by the delivery, when it's the content that matters. Otherwise, you'll spend 90% of your time experiencing/getting over bouts of butthurt. If it's not merely propaganda, and certainly not a 'trap', then explain why.

:)
Guest
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 2:14:46 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
I honestly think women choose to go after "assholes" because at first they seem confident, confidence is a big key in winning someone over. If you took someone who was shy against someone who was confident, the confident one would stand out more, they would seems more cheerful, and most of all like they were trying. all of those are things that women benefactor into choosing guys. Another thing is that sometimes they don't act like an asshole at first, they will treat her nice and they can make her smile and laugh , but a shy guy wont talk much, wont have a real conversation so it gets dull. First impressions do matter allot and if you chose the first impression between the shy nice one and the confident asshole, well most people would choose the confident one not knowing they were an asshole.

In my own experience I have dated assholes but I didn't stay with them, yeah assholes might get the girl but they can't keep them. To keep someone is always better to win them over first.
Dudealicious
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 2:32:29 PM

Rank: Wise Ass

Joined: 11/12/2010
Posts: 5,413
Location: The center of the universe, Canada
LadyX wrote:


Arthur, he's a no-bullshit responder. Don't be offended by the delivery, when it's the content that matters. Otherwise, you'll spend 90% of your time experiencing/getting over bouts of butthurt. If it's not merely propaganda, and certainly not a 'trap', then explain why.

:)


The easiest way to do so would be to provide some empirical evidence and links to "actual" findings wouldn't it? Versus just spewing a few sentences of how one "feels" and was "taught" or read.

I would also be careful when you call people out without knowing anything about them, then proceed to tell people to read the whole thread. I have. Even though there have been some good points debated, I feel like this thread is now going in circles.

As for your statement to Dancing_Doll
ArthurG77 wrote:
Thanks. You talk so articulately. I bet you are a great Author.


Maybe take the time to read some people's stories here and disconnect from this thread a little. I can feel a vibe here and it's not a good one.

OK?



The night that changed my life, a four part series of a married man lusting after his co-worker

Guest
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 2:34:37 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
LadyX wrote:


Arthur, he's a no-bullshit responder. Don't be offended by the delivery, when it's the content that matters. Otherwise, you'll spend 90% of your time experiencing/getting over bouts of butthurt. If it's not merely propaganda, and certainly not a 'trap', then explain why.

:)


It's not propaganda. As i have said, i started this thread for the open discussion and want to see others point of view - for the subject to be a 'debate whore'. I stated the fact that scientifc social experiments have shown that females prefer relations with a certain type of male as well as that the male showing traits of good parenting is also a factor, and pointed out that it has given my own personal experience scientific context. I didn't assert that it was THE 'truth'. I welcomed others points of view, even when they didn't agree with mine. And thanked some of the people for their imput. I was hoping to learn a little along the way. I had a good discussion with byronlord, whom i didn't totally agree with, but took on board his point of view. I wanted to explore the subject in terms of the role evolution plays in our mate selection process as well as expressing openly my emotions from past experience. I have never read one of the other 'nice guys finish last' threads so i can't comment about them. But it seemed that omkn approached it like it was the same as all the rest of the nice guy vs alpha-male threads. And didn't seem to show a good understanding of evolution. It is not propaganda because i am open to points of view from others and want to learn.
Guest
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 2:42:38 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
Dudealicious wrote:
I would also be careful when you call people out without knowing anything about them, then proceed to tell people to read the whole thread. I have. Even though there have been some good points debated, I feel like this thread is now going in circles.


Circles. Agreed.
Guest
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 2:59:56 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
Dudealicious wrote:


The easiest way to do so would be to provide some empirical evidence and links to "actual" findings wouldn't it? Versus just spewing a few sentences of how one "feels" and was "taught" or read.


I have not bothered to look for links on line though i have read some in the past. I have the titan book 'introducing evolutionary psychology', as well as 'The functional mind:Readings in evolutionary psychology' and 'A beginners guide' to EP. Which all have chapters that discuss mate selection and the traits that each gender look for. I have read several other books on EP, had discussion with fellow EP enthusiasts and even attended 2 lectures. I have also read steven pinker on the subject 9though I forget from which book) - he's a guy i really dig. As well as Dawkins. I am usually a skeptikal and critical thinker, and i don't even take what I have read as absolutely conclusive. I am always open to other theories. But i have only stated on here that there has been 'strong evidence' on the subject - thats not neccessarily conclusive. Maybe it would be a good idea for me to post a link to one such scientific article.
Thanks for the comment.
Guest
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 3:09:13 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
Emily69 wrote:
I honestly think women choose to go after "assholes" because at first they seem confident, confidence is a big key in winning someone over. If you took someone who was shy against someone who was confident, the confident one would stand out more, they would seems more cheerful, and most of all like they were trying. all of those are things that women benefactor into choosing guys. Another thing is that sometimes they don't act like an asshole at first, they will treat her nice and they can make her smile and laugh , but a shy guy wont talk much, wont have a real conversation so it gets dull. First impressions do matter allot and if you chose the first impression between the shy nice one and the confident asshole, well most people would choose the confident one not knowing they were an asshole.

In my own experience I have dated assholes but I didn't stay with them, yeah assholes might get the girl but they can't keep them. To keep someone is always better to win them over first.


Thanks. That makes a lot of sense. I know all about shyness. As I stated in a previous post the term 'asshole' is just used loosely to describe the way guy's sometimes treat women. Now a REAL asshole, perhaps won't have a job, perhaps may take drugs or even deal, perhaps would be a criminal, perhaps would cheat, perhaps would be abusive, perhaps wouldn't take care of his kids etc. Now what kind of woman wants a man like that? No woman of course! So women DO like a nice kinda guy who will take care of his kids, never cheat and will have a stable job. They (and I'm generalizing here) just don't want a 'doormat' kind of nice guy (the friend zone again). Also as people have pointed out, a so-called nice guy may actually turn out to be passive aggressive. Only seem nice on the exterior.
Guest
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 3:55:42 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
Completely off topic -



Actually. Not at all off topic........
Buz
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 9:00:26 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,824
Location: Atlanta, United States
It's not rocket science. Women like guys who are nice enough, but strong, not needy, have their shit together, have a plan for the future, can be funny, and don't whine. I myself don't like whiny guys. I just want to smack 'em.

Regaeman Man

Guest
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 11:09:57 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
Buz wrote:
It's not rocket science. Women like guys who are nice enough, but strong, not needy, have their shit together, have a plan for the future, can be funny, and don't whine. I myself don't like whiny guys. I just want to smack 'em.

Regaeman Man


Indeed. Splendid.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:07:15 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
A Useful Link.

"Because women are often limited in social power, they will seek advancement through their mate. They will look for a mate who has the characteristics of power, good earning capacity, and higher education, because these will boost a woman's social standing. Men are judged on being good providers, so when women are in a search for a mate, they tend to look for someone who can provide what they lack. Men will seek a mate who has qualities of being nurturing, a good cooker, and ability to perform domestic tasks (Howard, Blumstein, & Schwartz, 1987).
"
http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/denisiuk.html
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:21:57 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
Another useful link: http://sla-divisions.typepad.com/dbio/2009/02/the-evolutionary-psychology-of-womens-preferences-for-differing-types-of-men-at-different-times-of-their-reproductive-cycl.html

"Women’s Preferences in Male Mates According to Contemporary Studies in Evolutionary Psychology

Study and research in evolutionary psychology involves many different topical subdivisions, but this blog will focus on what the field itself calls “reproductive strategies.”

A core question is: What do women, consciously or unconsciously, look for in mates, and when do they do that looking most intensely?

Evolutionary psychology basically posits that despite whatever overt and intellectually well-though-out statements given by even highly educated women upon being interviewed, of what they seek in male sexual partners (at least in economically developed Western societies in North & South America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and the more prosperous parts of Asia), underlying biological urges that have been encoded as offspring survival genes govern their reproductive behavior and probably actually drive who and what arouses them and when."
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:29:53 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
Also from the link above:

"For the sake of imagery, women who feel themselves to be at the highest level of sexual attractiveness and willingness to have sex are always going to pick a Tony Soprano (as opposed to say, a Tony Stankus) because he is seen as the ultimate alpha male.

Evolutionary psychologists suggests that this goes back to females seeking the very strongest male among a clan to father their children so that the resulting children would be more likely to be strong owing to the father’s genes for size, vigor and strength.

Under the strong man-good genes strategy, both mother and children would ideally be better protected, and better provided with resources, because potentially, the putative father becomes emotionally invested in them to boot, and in particular defend them against any aggressive males who intend them harm.
"
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:01:09 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
overmykneenow
Posted: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:54:00 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/8/2010
Posts: 1,024
Location: United Kingdom
There is plenty I could comment on this thread but I'll let your Ad hominem attack and straw man arguments pass, this time. I'll instead concentrate on one statement.

ArthurG77 wrote:

It's not propaganda. As i have said, i started this thread for the open discussion and want to see others point of view - for the subject to be a 'debate whore'. I stated the fact that scientifc social experiments have shown that females prefer relations with a certain type of male as well as that the male showing traits of good parenting is also a factor, and pointed out that it has given my own personal experience scientific context.

No you didn't, you said:
ArthurG77 wrote:
are the Evolutionary Psychologists right? Do women really prefer the dominant alpha-male asshole typ. From personal experience, i'd say abso-goddamn-lutely. I should know, I used to be that really nice guy who treated women like queens only to learn that they are more attracted to the men who aren't so nice, who like to take control and make the women work for their attention. Am I wrong?

I strongly doubt there is single serious publish scientific that uses the term "dominant alpha-male asshole typ" in reference to a study group. This is the basis of your debate - how is it not intended to portray a biased opinion? You were the good guy, they wanted the bad guy.

Pseudosciences like EP gets whipped up as popular science, filling book shelves, newspapers and lifestyle magazines. As such it attracts the more media hungry elements of the scientific community. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, it seems to me that a little knowledge of EP can lead to some very dangerous theories mitigating any number of heinous acts and division in sexual, racial and social politics. All grist to the mill for pop-science publishers and newspaper editors

ArthurG77 wrote:
But it seemed that omkn approached it like it was the same as all the rest of the nice guy vs alpha-male threads. And didn't seem to show a good understanding of evolution. It is not propaganda because i am open to points of view from others and want to learn.


I approached it that way because that's how it looks and the replies seem to have treated it as such rather than as a discussion of EP. Your insistence that I read the whole thread was a provocative act - on a "non-threaded" forum such as this reading everything from everyone shouldn't be required, especially if my reply was given to the original post, as it was.

My understanding of evolution is good enough to know that there have been practically zero mutations affecting the population as a whole (ignoring a little gene-pool muddying from Neanderthals) since well before the time we developed agriculture. What our natural instincts were then shouldn't have changed much since and only nurtured instincts we've developed since have complicated issues.

(Sidenote: number of times "genes" are mentioned in On the Origin of Species = 0)

I haven't seen anything EP can answer that basic psychology can't, but I have seen it misused.

If you want to present something as scientific then do it in a scientific way. If you want to have a debate be prepared for people to disagree.

Warning: The opinions above are those of an anonymous individual on the internet. They are opinions, unless they're facts. They may be ill-informed, out of touch with reality or just plain stupid. They may contain traces of irony. If reading these opinions causes you to be become outraged or you start displaying the symptoms of outrage, stop reading them immediately. If symptoms persist, consult a psychiatrist.

Why not read some stories instead

NEW! Want a quick read for your coffee break? Why not try this... Flash Erotica: Scrubber
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:17:30 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
overmykneenow wrote:
I approached it that way because that's how it looks and the replies seem to have treated it as such rather than as a discussion of EP. Your insistence that I read the whole thread was a provocative act - on a "non-threaded" forum such as this reading everything from everyone shouldn't be required, especially if my reply was given to the original post, as it was.

My understanding of evolution is good enough to know that there have been practically zero mutations affecting the population as a whole (ignoring a little gene-pool muddying from Neanderthals) since well before the time we developed agriculture.


overmykneenow wrote:
What our natural instincts were then shouldn't have changed much since and only nurtured instincts we've developed since have complicated issues.


(Sidenote: number of times "genes" are mentioned in On the Origin of Species = 0)

I haven't seen anything EP can answer that basic psychology can't, but I have seen it misused.

If you want to present something as scientific then do it in a scientific way. If you want to have a debate be prepared for people to disagree.[/quote]


This comment from you is much better and more informative than your last ones. Well, fine if you are not in agreement with theories presented by EP's. Our natural instincts have barely changed at all. That is the whole point of EP. It's applying those traits of our evolutionary ancestors to modern human behaviour in modern society. I have posted some links to articles on here relating to EP's views on mate selection. If you don't agree with it then fair enough.

I have no problem with your disagreement. I do have a problem with the accusation you made, which was not true.

Genetics has proved evolutionary biology correct more than anything else. Clearly in Darwins day there wasn't the scientific knowledge on dna that we have today.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:30:14 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
"Pseudosciences like EP gets whipped up as popular science, filling book shelves, newspapers and lifestyle magazines. As such it attracts the more media hungry elements of the scientific community. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, it seems to me that a little knowledge of EP can lead to some very dangerous theories mitigating any number of heinous acts and division in sexual, racial and social politics. All grist to the mill for pop-science publishers and newspaper editors"

By saying EP can lead to some very dangerous theories mitigating any number of heinous acts and division in sexual, racial and social poitics - I assume you are refering to what some people call 'Social Darwinism' (correct me if I'm wrong). I am NOT an advocate of social Darwinism for many reasons. That kind of thinking is elitism. And at no point have I claimed that one aspect of culture and race is superior to any other. Using Evolutioary theory to justify peoples own prejudices in poltics and society is indeed a very dangerous thing. And no that is not what I am doing here. I am trying to get accross that biological urges mates have for character traits exist. According to scientific study. I am not expeessing that one gender or type is superior according to science.
Thanks for the feedback.

There are established intellectuals such as Richard dawkins and steven pnker that do advocate EP, and they are very well respected in the academic community. That doesn't make EP anymore correct of course. But I wouldn't say it was a pseudoscience. even if it hasn't been applied well, perhaps the potential is there for the subject to shed a lot of light on our understanding of human behaviour.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 5:21:07 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
ArthurG77,

In the original post, there was a word used that skews this whole debate. That word was "Prefer", I am not an expert on EP, nevertheless I think that any discussion on Evolutionary Psychology would be best served by the avoidance of such subjective statements.

I prefer apples to pears, that doesn't mean a great deal, simply I prefer apples.

If you look at any of the threads here you will see a whole host of questions relating to "preferences" the responses to these questions are invariably the same, I prefer big, I prefer small I prefer medium...

Are there biological imperatives, sure I believe that to be so, we all have a need for status, an understanding of were we fit into the hierarchy of our communities. We can get this need met in numerous ways, the coach of the under 7's football team, a girl guide leader or a volunteer, there are so many ways that we can get this need met. This is biological, (in my opinion) if we don't have this need for status met, we will encounter distress, emotional distress and this will affect out ability to have our other needs met, such as safety and security, attention needs, intimacy needs, and so on.

I think it was Dancing Doll (hope that's correct) who mentioned a spectrum, from physical health to mental health we all exist upon this spectrum, it is when we desire or feel that we should be in a different place that the difficulties arise (in many cases this would be a desire to be further up that spectrum perhaps?)

Did apple simply allow Samsung to imitate their products, no, they did something about it. For apple it was about survival and protectionism, (again this is my view) yet amazingly Apple and Samsung still exist, as do Nokia, Microsoft and so on.

So with this in mind can a nice guy survive in the world today, absolutely. Can the Alpha Male get it so wrong and weep into their beer on a Sunday morning, I'd imagine so.

Human beings will protect what they have, they will do all that they can to protect what they hold dear. This may mean in the "flux" some people may have to slip down the spectrum, the key is to be at ease with that that. Each period of our life is a page we turn, in our own "novel" we have to experience the highs and lows, this is what it is to be human being.

The debate will rage forever about evolution, about survival of the fittest, a nice guys finish last, or really hot women only like "Assholes", neither has in my view any lasting resonance, simply, and to coin the Soprano's..."It is what it is" & "What ya gonna do"

I may well have gone of topic here, and I may not have contributed anything to the debate, I was really hoping to illustrate that the word "Prefer" was perhaps a misleading in some ways, and may have contributed to the loss of substance your evolutionary psychology statement could have had.

I for one, in real terms would not enjoy the world of literature, film, TV, music, art, without these human conflict. It is one might say the very essence of humanity, the struggles we all have in relation to, well relationships.

For information purposes, after eight comments on this thread I knew were it was going to end...in the circle that was mentioned by a dude.

I really have gone off topic now, I'm off to read about who prefers big willies.

Tata!

Guest
Posted: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 6:03:45 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
orangefox444 wrote:
ArthurG77,

In the original post, there was a word used that skews this whole debate. That word was "Prefer", I am not an expert on EP, nevertheless I think that any discussion on Evolutionary Psychology would be best served by the avoidance of such subjective statements.

I prefer apples to pears, that doesn't mean a great deal, simply I prefer apples.

If you look at any of the threads here you will see a whole host of questions relating to "preferences" the responses to these questions are invariably the same, I prefer big, I prefer small I prefer medium...

Are there biological imperatives, sure I believe that to be so, we all have a need for status, an understanding of were we fit into the hierarchy of our communities. We can get this need met in numerous ways, the coach of the under 7's football team, a girl guide leader or a volunteer, there are so many ways that we can get this need met. This is biological, (in my opinion) if we don't have this need for status met, we will encounter distress, emotional distress and this will affect out ability to have our other needs met, such as safety and security, attention needs, intimacy needs, and so on.

I think it was Dancing Doll (hope that's correct) who mentioned a spectrum, from physical health to mental health we all exist upon this spectrum, it is when we desire or feel that we should be in a different place that the difficulties arise (in many cases this would be a desire to be further up that spectrum perhaps?)

Did apple simply allow Samsung to imitate their products, no, they did something about it. For apple it was about survival and protectionism, (again this is my view) yet amazingly Apple and Samsung still exist, as do Nokia, Microsoft and so on.

So with this in mind can a nice guy survive in the world today, absolutely. Can the Alpha Male get it so wrong and weep into their beer on a Sunday morning, I'd imagine so.

Human beings will protect what they have, they will do all that they can to protect what they hold dear. This may mean in the "flux" some people may have to slip down the spectrum, the key is to be at ease with that that. Each period of our life is a page we turn, in our own "novel" we have to experience the highs and lows, this is what it is to be human being.

The debate will rage forever about evolution, about survival of the fittest, a nice guys finish last, or really hot women only like "Assholes", neither has in my view any lasting resonance, simply, and to coin the Soprano's..."It is what it is" & "What ya gonna do"

I may well have gone of topic here, and I may not have contributed anything to the debate, I was really hoping to illustrate that the word "Prefer" was perhaps a misleading in some ways, and may have contributed to the loss of substance your evolutionary psychology statement could have had.

I for one, in real terms would not enjoy the world of literature, film, TV, music, art, without these human conflict. It is one might say the very essence of humanity, the struggles we all have in relation to, well relationships.

For information purposes, after eight comments on this thread I knew were it was going to end...in the circle that was mentioned by a dude.

I really have gone off topic now, I'm off to read about who prefers big willies.

Tata!




Acknowledged. Thanks for the feedback. Good stuff.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.